Control and management of insects, including muscoid and nonmuscoid flies attracted to animals such as dairy cows, has proven challenging, costly, illusive, and frequently ineffective. Both muscoid and nonmuscoid flies, in a wide variety of species, cluster synanthropically to humans and their domestic animals, or in close proximity to humans and domesticated animals such as cows. Insects may have dramatic impact on the economics of animal production, which is a commercial industry constituting a significant contribution to the gross national product of the United States, where the dairy cattle industry has been estimated to produce $12 billion annually. The several different species of flies commonly found on livestock premises may cause a number of problems, including irritating cows so severely that milk production suffers; transmitting disease pathogens; increasing enteric (intestinal) diseases among humans associated with cow herds; violation of regulatory rules and regulations, and a host of similar problems.
A variety of devices, apparatus and methods have been proposed for controlling insects, including flies, among cattle, including dairy cows. None has proven effective in achieving the level of control demanded by industry operators. None of the devices, apparatus and methods proposed for controlling flies in and around a dairy herd provides substantially complete control of a fly population using a substantially automated insect control apparatus requiring minimal operator involvement during operation of the apparatus.
One proposal for controlling flies attracted to cattle, for example, is to bury fly parasites in soil beneath the surface of the soil on which cattle are penned. In addition, other insects, including nematodes, have been introduced into herd locations in hopes of fly control. Fly traps using bait attractants have been used. None of those techniques has proven effective in controlling fly populations attracted to cattle pens. For several reasons, parasites may achieve control of only a small portion of a fly population, and then only temporarily. Parasites reproduce more slowly than the rate at which flies reproduce. Parasite hatch rates are unreliable and unpredictable. A parasite population further may be reduced because parasites die or fly way. Parasite use as a method for attempting to control flies among cattle is labor intensive, therefore expensive, usually making the solution unacceptable to an operator of a cattle business. Virtually no fly control is achieved using nematodes. Nematodes are not suitable for use in acidic soils. Because of the large amounts of manure and urine produced by multiple pens of cattle, all soil used for cattle becomes acidic. In addition, use of nematodes is an impractical solution because nematodes must be applied or introduced into a herd at night, only after rain fall, and must be reintroduced frequently to achieve any measure of success in controlling insects on an animal and animal herd. Also, no marked reduction of a fly population occurs in connection with use of fly traps. Fly traps rely on bait, and no bait has proven effective, particularly for large tracts of land used to pen large cattle herds. Virtually no control has been achieved using scattered bait. "Scattered bait" generally is manufactured in the form of pellets comprised of sugar granules treated with poison and attractants. Studies show that flies develop a resistance or immunity to chemicals used in conventional bait.
Spraying or fogging chemicals on cattle has proven equally marginal in achieving control of flies for long periods of time. Spraying or fogging are very expensive procedures in view of using currently available apparatus and methods, particularly using effective chemicals, often because those apparatus and methods waste considerable amounts of costly chemicals during operation. Aerial spraying of insecticide on cattle has proven no more effective than use of fly parasites, nematodes, and fly traps using bait attractants. Other spraying techniques and apparatus include insecticide fogging of cattle by truck mounted sprayers, as well as larvicide spraying of manure. A variety of spray systems installed in wash pens have attempted to control flies among cattle, but none provides substantially complete control of a fly population using a substantially automated insect control apparatus that requires little operator involvement during operation the apparatus. Neither direct spraying nor aerial spraying of roosting flies at night, when flies tend to sleep, either by truck mounted or backpack sprayers, has produced other than marginal results. While providing a temporary reduction in a fly population, aerial spraying is extremely expensive, and must be repeated frequently to achieve any results. For the typical dairy herd operator, therefore, aerial spraying is not economically feasible. Further, appropriate chemicals cannot be used in connection with either aerial or truck mounted spraying devices because of unavoidable chemical contamination of feed and water. In addition, cattle often are frightened by airplane applications, resulting in cattle loss when cattle have been crushed against pen railings by other stampeding cows. Truck mounted fogging sprayers generally achieve only partial control of fly populations, and then only four a short period of time. Truck spraying also may constitute a health hazard to an operator of the sprayer unit. Further, when cattle pens are fogged, many flies avoid the effects of spraying by vacating the area being sprayed, but promptly return when fogging has ended.
Other forms of spraying apparatus propose use of more than one device for applying a spray to an animal, such as more than one nozzle, but use of multiple devices like multiple nozzles causes significant waste of chemicals, thus increasing significantly the cost of a spraying operation. Unique chemical compositions developed for animal herd application are very expensive. An oil based chemical mixture, therefore, is inherently expensive, yet an oil based chemical mixture has proven to be the only effective combination of ingredients to control flies among cattle, particularly in a dairy environment. In other currently available apparatus for spraying chemicals on an animal, the recommended positioning of any detector included in the apparatus causes the sprayers to become inoperative. When dairy cattle, for example, pass in the vicinity of sprayers, a detection device mounted anywhere other than generally above the head of a cow will become covered with significant quantities of manure, rendering the detection device inoperable. In addition, none of the existing sprayers provides for water encapsulation to encapsulate water with one or more ingredients to be applied to an animal, including one or more chemicals.
Other proposals for controlling insects among cattle include feeding cows oral larvicide and applying residual insecticides on the underside of shaders. No significant long-term reduction in the fly population has been observed using an oral larvicide, primarily because no chemical that might work effectively against flies may be fed orally to milking cattle. Even more primitive devices have been used, such as back rubbers, both manuals and automated. A manual back rubber applicator requires an operator to periodically remove, dip into a chemical, and reinstall a rubber device above the back of a cow that walks beneath the rubber device. No noticeable difference, however, in fly population has been observed using this method, and automated variations have proven no more effective. Ear tags, or other apparatus attachable to parts of an animal's body, containing a liquid chemical or insecticide dispensable on an animal, also have not satisfied the industry requirements for an apparatus that provides substantially complete control of the fly population in the form of a substantially automated system requiring relatively little attention during operation. Ear tags or similar apparatus connectable to parts of an animal body cannot be designed to release or apply sufficient chemicals either to an animal or to flies.
Other proposals for controlling flies among cattle herds include spraying underneath shaders, direct spraying of roosting flies, and spraying vegetation near cattle pens. Those techniques may eliminate problems associated with food and water contamination, but are labor intensive and expensive. An average dairy herd, for example, requires six to seven hours to complete one such spraying cycle, a cycle that must be repeated often to achieve even minimal control. A problem encountered by these methods is the tendency of flies to change roosting areas regularly, requiring an operator to hunt fly roosting areas to effectively induce a spray.
Larvicide spraying has not proven feasible because of the huge volume of water required to penetrate at least three inches below the surface of soil where fly larvae feed. The typical service truck carries only 500 gallons of water, and for a cattle herd held in a common arrangement of twelve pens, the cost of frequent larvicide applications is prohibitive.
Possibly in response to ecological concerns, sanitation techniques have been offered as possible solutions to fly problems. However, manure, because of its pasty consistency, is difficult to remove and separate from dirt in cattle pens. Proper sanitation efforts may reduce fly breeding in a given area, but will not achieve control. Harrowing, for example, must be done daily to achieve even thirty percent control, which is very labor intensive and expensive.
A problem to be solved, therefore, is to substantially reduce insect infestation, including flies of every specie, in and around animal herds, including herds of dairy cattle. What is needed, therefore, is an automated insect control apparatus that is useful for substantially fully controlling flies on and around an animal, including a bovine animal such as a cow, and for controlling the overall fly population on a farm.
One advantage of the novel automated insect control apparatus provided by the present invention is that the automated insect control apparatus provides substantially full control over flies, including the many known varieties of flies located among dairy cows. Also, because chemical application to an animal is isolated to a small area, environmental hazards are substantially reduced. The apparatus is so efficient that little chemical is wasted, thus affording the user a significant chemical cost reduction.
Yet another advantage of the present invention is use of a single spray nozzle to achieve effective application of one or more ingredients, including one or more chemicals, as well as an oil, to an animal. Because an oil based chemical mixture increases costs associated with spraying and applications if more than one nozzle is used to spray an animal with a combination of chemicals and oil, the use of a single nozzle is a significant advantage of the present invention.
Yet another advantage of the present invention is positioning the detection device included in the apparatus beyond reach of an animal as an animal moves in relationship to the apparatus. The capability of adjusting the location of the detection device above the passing head of an animal avoids contact by the animal with the detection device, and avoids a common problem around dairy herds where manure may be deposited on a detection device, rendering the detection capability of the device useless or inoperable.
Still another advantage of the present automated insect control apparatus is the water encapsulation unit mountable on the delivery system. The water encapsulation unit applies water to the animal passing the apparatus, and encapsulates the one or more ingredients, including one or more chemicals, discharged from the delivery system, to prevent waste and drift of the chemicals.
The present invention is an insect control apparatus that is substantially fully automated, an important advantage in an industry such as the dairy cattle industry, allowing frequent, regular, repetitive, effective and thorough application of the best and most appropriate combination of ingredients, including chemical mixtures, while substantially eliminating user involvement during operation of the apparatus.
Still another important advantage of the present invention is the ability to link an automated insect control apparatus, according to the present invention, with one or more other automated insect control apparatus, using the same electrical line or lines, controlled by the same timing device, and employing the same chemical distribution lines.
Another advantage of the present invention is use of a detector responsive to sound, such as an ultrasonic sensor, as well as use of an air operated diaphragm pump in combination with a solenoid to maintain system pressure at the point of delivery through a single nozzle, thus greatly increasing chemical delivery speed, and reducing costs due to excessive or inadequate sprays of chemical and oil.
Yet another advantage of the present invention is an automated insect control apparatus, and a method for operating an automated insect control apparatus, that respectively are easy to use and to practice, and which are cost effective for their intended purposes.
These advantages and other objects and features of such an apparatus for controlling insects on an animal, will become apparent to those skilled in the art when read in conjunction with the accompanying following description, drawing figures, and appended claims.